Can We Call a Truce?

As a fundamentalist, I’m all for separation. However, as a Biblicist, I can’t escape the exhortation to endeavor to keep the unity in the church. When it comes to passages on separation, the Bible is clear that truth and error do not mix. But it’s obvious that error is a part of life. I think this is why we are to endeavor for unity. In other words, work at it, strive for it, because your human ways will make you all differ, and you all must learn to put up with one another.

The fact is the guy sitting next to you in the pew probably differs from you in more ways than you know. Yet if a certain author or preacher says one thing different from what we’ve come to believe, we are sometimes too quick to brand him a heretic.

What we need is to find that proper balance between both of God’s mandates: the mandate to separate and the mandate to unite. Of course, there are some things that we just cannot tolerate. But sometimes we all seem so close in belief and practice, yet so divided. I’ve chosen to use as my example for this post everyone’s favorite debate: the Calvinism debate.

There’s no doubt that theologians have been wrestling to reconcile God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility for centuries. But many Internet scholars among us assume they have it all figured out. Whether it is Calvinism, Arminianism, or Calminianism, many Christians are ready to articulate why their particular view of the doctrines of grace is the correct one. Sorry, I just don’t buy that.

Calvinism is a man made system. This doesn’t make it wrong. But it does assume it could be wrong. It is a way of interpreting the Bible. So is Arminianism. So is dispensationalism. So is covenant theology. And so on. Some of these systems are better than others, but let’s face the facts: humans are responsible for their development, so they are all subject to error. So Calvinism might be right, wrong, or anything in between. The only thing we all can agree is 100% right is the Bible. This is true Biblicism. If we can all agree to that, we’re all Biblicists of some sort.

We establish, then, that the Bible has supreme authority in all matters. Here’s where the Bible’s exhortation to humility comes into play. Let us all lower ourselves under the supremacy of the Bible. You say, “I do that already, and I’m a Calvinist. . .or Arminian. . .or whatev. . ” Yes, that’s fine. But remember that your system is still to be ruled by the Bible. If you come to one with biblical conclusions, that’s fine. But here’s the point: we all feel that way! And we’re still arguing over the same things. Is there any possible way that we can call a truce?

“What do you mean by a truce? Are we to set aside the battle between Calvinism and Arminianism? Between God’s sovereign grace and man’s free will?” No, not really. I think there are certain things worth standing up for:

1. Salvation is entirely of the Lord. He initiates, He moves, He atoned, He resurrected, He calls, He draws, He justifies, He sanctifies, He glorifies.

2. God gets the glory in salvation at all times.

3. The gospel is to be preached to every creature.

4. Man does not have the power to manipulate a move of God.

I highlight these particular concepts because I share them in common with Calvinists, yet I can’t call myself a Calvinist. I’m not calling for a truce between those who think they can save themselves and those who think only God saves. I’m calling for one between those who call themselves Calvinists and those who believe the above statements without subscribing to all of Reformed thinking.

So what’s the problem?

The problem isn’t that James White answers his critics like George Bryson, Bob Ross, or David Cloud. These men have been vitriolic in their approach against Calvinism in a manner inconsistent with the Bible. The problem isn’t John Piper, Mark Dever, Al Mohler, and John MacArthur spearheading an entire conservative evangelical resurgence back to biblical authority by means of Calvinism: they have helped me in everlasting ways. The problem isn’t Ray Comfort or Paul Washer calling the church back to biblical evangelism with a subtle Calvinistic under-girding, for their ministries have had such an amazing impact in such a necessary area. The problem is that it seems you can’t disagree at all with some Calvinists, because if you do, you attribute undue glory to man and undermine God’s sovereignty.

Am I allowed to say that I believe in God’s sovereignty and at the same time man’s responsibility in a way that’s different from Calvinist thinking? I fear if I do I’ll be labeled Semi-Pelagian. Can I not say that God is the lone Source and Initiator of salvation while still believing that man must repent and believe in order to be saved in a way that differs slightly from Calvinism? I fear if I do I’ll be labeled a synergist. This is not the way to keep the unity. As a fundamentalist, I’d like to do my part by admonishing non-Calvinistic fundamentalists everywhere to stop calling Calvinists “those who don’t go soul-winning.” There have been some examples of hyper-Calvinism through the ages, in which they abused the system of Calvinism to a point where they became stagnant. That’s not the norm, though, and fundamentalists need to stop being so critical of an ideology that has actually been way more helpful than hurtful. On the other hand, if I may, I’d like to plea with Calvinists to agree to hold differences with us without telling us that we somehow give glory to man with our beliefs. I think you all should continue to fight against Arminianism and real Pelagianism and any man-centered system for that matter. But please, if someone can agree with you about the above statements, is it at all possible to endeavor to keep the unity between us?

I hope I made myself clear. I am not an Arminian nor a Calvinist. I don’t want to say I’m a Biblicist because that would imply neither of the others are (in the sense that we all believe the Bible is the supreme authority). I’m a non-Calvinist who believes God is all sovereign and the sole source of salvation, to Whom belongs the glory alone in all things. Like many young fundamentalist, I have been extremely helped by Calvinists. Yet I have reservations about every tenet of Reformed theology. Can I still be in the club?